Is The internet a control mechanism?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Perfection
Yes, Al Gore invented it as a means to spread his global warming paranoia in his bid for eventual world domination.

Wait, you know about the Bilderberg Group and their plans for global domination too ?

Yes, Al Gore invented it too enslave our minds, just as he is using the global warming myth to enslave our bodies as well. His secret agenda is to achieve immortality and reduce the world population to 500 million, forcing the remainder to live in tightly controlled cities.


Almost forgot, he eats babies too, and is an immortal lizard hybrid like queen Elizabeth the II.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
I was talking about reptilian jewish bankers while you were trying to compare human jews to rats. It's a completely different thing.

Ehh, yeah right. Dude if I was anti-Semitic I would say something like:
You say that like its some kind of joke, but the Jews are really cold hearted exploiters who control our economy and the media. They are the definition of a corrupt upper class. Their mindset is transmitted via their culture and is enhanced by their genetic predispositions.

All, I did was take you’re absurd dehumanized comparison and subsisted it with another just as insane one. It was attempt to get a +1 out of you’re little troll. Anyway you should get sarcasm 101 and read it.

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
but the Jews are really cold hearted exploiters who control our economy and the media. They are the definition of a corrupt upper class. Their mindset is transmitted via their culture and is enhanced by their genetic predispositions.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Ecthy


Does that include action against regular bullies off this site?

I’m confused. Who did I bully?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV

Making fun out of the serius problem of anit-semitism is not ok Riesstiu IV.

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Making fun out of the serius problem of anit-semitism is not ok Ressiu.

I'll make sure to relay that message to Mr. Ressiu.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Pekka
Not really. But it could be and in some ways it is distancing itself from the original idea.

But I'd say even today, not really. Except in philosophical sense you could say that it is, because it can be a powerful source for propaganda because propaganda can be used and people think the internet is free, so it's difficult to detect, it's easy to spin things there and so forth... or more to the point, you can set talking points there and basically direct what is being discussed and push strong so the things that aren't supposed to be discussed is trivialized into something so small that it doesn't really matter, it rather only emphasize the paradigm that has been set by being so small.

However, that would be still saying that war is really peace, so currently? I don't think it's a control mechanism but it can be used as such and it would be extremely powerful and in some ways it is used as such. But not very succesfully, and it concerns the Britney Spear fan types, not the mega elite that is of course us .

But surely, the wider implementation of technology, intrusive tech and policies are very much about control, the sophisticated ways that semantic mining, surveillance in general is possible... well that's a huge control mechanism right there that affects our behaviour by making us all subjects as long as we accept being subjectified and thus it also affects our identity and our ethics, as in what is our ethical code, as in how do we feel about ourselves, that later on translates into external behaviour -> that is what surveillance is supposed to accomplish (make people behave in an "acceptable" way that is determined by the powers that be and by defining what is deviance and what is not. Deviance is set to be abnormal as well so if you want to fit to this society... you better not be these things).

So my answer is currently no, but potentially yes and to some extent there have been, there is and there will be attempts to strengthen it as a control mechanism.

Good post Pekka. But let me ask you is it not at the very heart of totalitarian regimes to make war peace, and vice-versa? I mean if the internet was being used to subtly monitor and correct opinions, who would notice? A basic step would be just to manipulate search engine results, just reduce the number of hits, or even purposely fill the first few pages with references to clearly wacky sites or with sites that hold a view that you agree with. In this manner you could provide a gentle but constant tug on public opinion on that matter. And since people rely on the internet very much, this could soon turn from a gentle tug to a command you wouldn’t even know you were following.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV


I'll make sure to relay that message to Mr. Ressiu.

Why, thank you very much, kind sir.

[Pekka]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Good post Pekka. But let me ask you is it not at the very heart of totalitarian regimes to make war peace, and vice-versa? I mean if the internet was being used to subtly monitor and correct opinions, who would notice? A basic step would be just to manipulate search engine results, just reduce the number of hits, or even purposely fill the first few pages with references to clearly wacky sites or with sites that hold a view that you agree with. In this manner you could provide a gentle but constant tug on public opinion on that matter. And since people rely on the internet very much, this could soon turn from a gentle tug to a command you wouldn’t even know you were following.

That's not what I really meant though. But I guess it's rather a technical issue than semantic. I mean sure, if you have a totalitarian regime, the idea is to make people not revolt and raise ruckus. In the heart of power lies the idea of holding that power, not just to have few years and "correct what others screwed up in the last couple of years". I mean if you really have a regime that wants power, to change the course into something different, you have to remain in power in order to see those changes come true, so should you be totalitarian... I mean you're not into this whole election thing to begin with, so yes, you should turn things upside down. In these types of cases, you simply make people cut the tallest weed. You don't need to be showing asymmetrical power yourself. That's not really power to begin with, that's middle age type of thing where you torture and kill the deviant in the market square and have people looking at it, "this is what happens to you if you do not comply".

But that's gone now. Power is when people monitor other people. OK let's have an example... You can install and you should install certain values and tie those values to your system of governing. That is, if you go against us, you go against our values, that is you go against ALL of us. That makes you the enemy. In more authoritarian regimes this would be patriotism, and if you call us up on things, you are not a patriot. It is important to question people for their patriotism in order to make them weaker in the eyes of others, so that the others will take care of the troublemakers. In socialism, the dissidents would be against our well being. We say we give you cradle to grave service, so if you're against that, you're against the well being of people, especially the poor people and people in trouble and what kind of a cold hearted bastard would you be to do that? Greedy, perhaps?

That's the basic idea, it's very simple, and it's the one that keeps you in power so you don't really have to fight. Make people fight. Now you can use this as well as brute force, but then you really need an ideology behind that, so you can justify using force on your own people within the eyes of the majority that agrees with your ideology, see communism.

Now this is what it's all about. To govern people so that they'll be in the mix, not that YOU are in the mix with the people. That weakens you, because you have given your opponents credit by entering the fight. You don't want to do that. Give them other enemies and stay out.

How does this relate into this discussion? THe idea of the internet and setting up talking points is simple. Listen, if I'm running for a position, I want 500 bloggers tomorrow, who will be writing for me and seem "independent". Bloggers enjoy even greater status of independence, they're individuals like you and me, right? But they're an awesome power, grass roots power. Now set up talkings points through them. Make them spin the issues for you, create discussion and debate where YOU select what the talking points are. This way you can spin them and most importnatly make issues that are against you null and virtually non-existent. Some people would be still talking about it, but against my 500 bloggers? ****, who knows they even exist, right? And how difficult is it to get 500 bloggers if you've got money and connections? Just 500 dedicated supporters basically. Cheap, effective and seems very genuine.

So this is the idea of propaganda used on the internet. It seems valid, it seems legit and most of all, it seems independent. Think of news stations. They set up talking points. HOw often do you go, "Sure, but why don't they talk about X POV, that seems way more valid?". Because they choose their own POVs and topics. THat's why. So the next day everyone else is talking about the points the news set up and not the points that might be more valid. Again, some people do talk about them as well but they are being marginalized. This is power. This is about the creation of discourses, basically you're deciding what is being talked about, that is basically the reality for that set time and place.

The illusion of spontaneous action and freedom of it is the true power for that set propaganda. Then just make the loudest opponents of yours seem like villains and jerks who have dirt in their past. So what if you got dirt as well, you've got the loudest voice. This is to say, the one who has the biggest voice on the internet wins. Not the individual. There's no such thing as one person, one vote. Not on the internet.

Think about news stations again adn the power of it. As we believe to be informed and free, to say... vote who we want to vote... the news stations and others decide what we should know. OK? Don't you think that it's a big ****ing deal? When printed press came along, they had to make REAALLY tough choices about the dialects used for official stuff, basically because that would be the norm, that would be the language used officially. Others would be using slang, different dialects and so forth, thus they knew it had a big impact on what people consider to be normal. Huge decisions.

So about fudging the search engines... sure, but I don't think it's that realistic. Google etc. it's a huge business. Their page ranking algorithms are basically the trade secret that gives them their real value, at least their initial value. So to fudge that up? No I don't think so. This isn't to say they're so cool and ethical, even though they say so themselves. Yahoo, Google... they've all stood before serious folks, answering why they gave in for the demands of China, that was against their own policies. Well... it isn't true even if it says on the paper, people bend, policies change etc. It's a question of who asks and what kind of power they carry with them.

So no, I don't consider search engines as a big problem, even though potentially it would be a huge problem. I see the potential, I don't see the actual implementation of it, at least not yet.

And it's not just the internet. It is the storing of information about you on other information systems and databases that counts. I mean... there's a double of you in databases. Some of them are pretty damn important, and they are more so every day. You think if your local secret police had something on you and it was then entered into their database, that it wouldn't be a problem? Say it's a mistake, you never did it, but it somehow got their as a fact, or just a typo even. YOu think someone is going to believe YOU, or the database? There you go. A big problem for you. Now consider the fact, that the people are idiots usually. Most people are idiots. So consider the amount of typos, mistakes, abuse, just everything... and now you see the problem. And if you challenge it... remember... you're the dissident, who wants to protect criminals.

Do you have any idea how much data is compromised every single day around the world, and I'm talking about official things and what we think should be very secure... IRS, credit card companies etc... they all fail just simple auditions pretty ****ing miserably. Because they have bad policies, incompetent workers, both, or whatever. It's not a question of if, it's a question of how much and what someone did with the booty. So it's not just their own staff that fudges up the data, it's also outside threats. Hackers, organized crime, cyberterrorism (in the future), foreign governments, corporate espionage and spies... you name it. There's tons of people who would like to have any kind of information that they aren't supposed to have, and it's a big business and for some, it's just a hobby. So don't ever ask "who would do such a thing". Just about anybody.

have a nice day...

[Heraclitus]

Good post.


Do you like have a blog going on somewhere, or do you just abuse poly for that?

Anyhow search engines aren't the the heart of the issue, I never said they where. That's why I compared the internets potential to phone taping, video surveillance and reading peoples mail. Vast amounts of info exist, with info comes dirt. I mean, is anyone of this generation electable in a puritan hypocritical society like the US? And further more how many retroactive crimes are we picking up? All it takes is one government to check what you have been saying for the past 40 years, they would drum up charges in a second, they would even have proof. Plus they would have the perfect indoctrination test,

A regime that employs people who genuinely believe in it? That has to be the scariest thing I ever heard.

[snoopy369]

I'm electable Neither a puritan or hypocritical!

[Pekka]

I don't have a blog. I abuse Poly. But these things are the philosophical background thingies for my profession (security management, risk manag, policies, strategies). They aren't implemented though... so more of a personal interest. I fight for YOUR privacy and freedom damn it. It doesn't make me popular necessary but that's just too bad.

And right, that's also in the heart of the problem where you say dig up stuff from the last 40 years. What kind of data retention policies we have? We don't, or they're poor. Who keeps the data and what kind of security measures are taken? Poor. What about insider threats and abuse or just pure incompetence? Guaranteed. I mean in places where certain types of people go, as if it was natural selection, places like certain security entities, sure. They have pretty good policies and they follow them, but that's because they have a calling for it. Most people just don't give a **** outside those entities. So your information isn't safe.

Your personal information is traded all the time. Your name, occupation, income rate, everything is important for most businesses so we can market you stuff you might buy, or that we might produce products or services that suits you. Either way, your personal information is goods and subject for trade. They're making money. I personally think if my info is being passed, I should get paid every single time, or have it stopped. I think my consent would be kind of important for my own privacy. Most do not share my view.

Let's take another example.. if you have a BMW, it's your car, right? Do you think BMW thinks it's your car? It's their product, right, so it's kind of their car. So they want information. How are you liking it, how is stuff holding up, how do you use your car, what kind of tendencies our customers have, what kind of people buy our cars so we can sell more cars. That means you. Who are you? All kinds of people collect all kinds of data, and how secure are their databases, how much they care for your privacy? Very little usually.

Now consider the fact, that all this information about you is then combined. Maybe someone wants to profile you. All the data is basically fragmented and very static. When you are being profiled, how accurate is that? It says you've downloaded an excessive amount of porn, you had homosexual fantasies at the age of 15 even though you didn't act upon it but you wrote about it, you like stories of serial killers and you often go into political debates where you seem to have radical opinions. The background of your relatives have at least one direct relative who is known to frequent in a bar that is a known hang out for pedophiles. You smoked weed once at college, so you're a drug user as well. Your credit balance is off the chart every now and then and you might have a drinking problem. You aren't married, you don't have children even though you are over 30. You're highly educated, critical thinker and so forth... do you think we trust you now? Do you think this information is somehow valid?

And consider the fact that government changes all the time. What if after 20 years we have a new Hitler somewhere. All this info just came very handy. Let's see where the homos are at. We don't even have to make them come to us, we can just go to them now. Print the list. Print it from your mobile phone.

Remember, you are always a potential problem, even if you aren't a problem. But time can change anything

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Pekka

And consider the fact that government changes all the time. What if after 20 years we have a new Hitler somewhere. All this info just came very handy. Let's see where the homos are at. We don't even have to make them come to us, we can just go to them now. Print the list. Print it from your mobile phone.

Remember, you are always a potential problem, even if you aren't a problem. But time can change anything

That's what I meant with retroactive crimes.

[Pekka]

Yes. And that relates very much to setting up talking points, defining what is normal, what is deviance.

HOmos? Deviance. Abnormal. They're legit targets.

Talking points? OK. Here's your freedom of choice, would you rather wear a yellow or a red hat? Vote.

What if you'd like a blue hat? What if you'd like a helmet? What if you don't want to wear anything, or what if you don't even want to answer that because it's too stupid? Well then you're a radical of some sort. That is to say, you're a problem and against all the yellow hat wearing mofos.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Pekka
Yes. And that relates very much to setting up talking points, defining what is normal, what is deviance.

HOmos? Deviance. Abnormal. They're legit targets.

Talking points? OK. Here's your freedom of choice, would you rather wear a yellow or a red hat? Vote.

What if you'd like a blue hat? What if you'd like a helmet? What if you don't want to wear anything, or what if you don't even want to answer that because it's too stupid? Well then you're a radical of some sort. That is to say, you're a problem and against all the yellow hat wearing mofos.

Exactly, I'm suprised people aren't more worried.